A long-anticipated analysis of Palm Coast’s 26 miles of saltwater canals, the second since 2005 in the canals’ half-century history, revealed to some surprise that the canals are in better shape than expected. While that diminishes the urgency, breadth and cost of necessary dredging, dredging would still be necessary and expensive where it’s needed. The city has no funding mechanism.
For the past few years, as the the Palm Coast City Council has discussed canal maintenance, it has done so mostly in the dark. It ahs assumed that after 50 years, the canals have silted up considerably and that dredging them would be expensive. There’s been a lot of debate about how residents would shoulder the cost–if it would be a special taxing district affecting primarily residents on the canals, if it should be all city residents, or a hybrid, or if grants could shoulder the cost.
The findings by Tyler Engineering Consultants are changing the conversation to a degree. They are narrowing the range of needed dredging and recasting the discussion about where that should take place, and to what depth. Who should pay remains a key question. But the narrower the need for dredging, the less the justification for a broader tax or fee structure.
“Given these canals have not been dredged in their approximate 50 years of existence,” Taylor Engineering’s Terry Cake said at a workshop on Tuesday, “in my opinion these are in really good shape. There’s a lot of canals out there that require dredging annually or every couple of years just because of the shoaling, just because that’s the way the water moves and that’s where the sediment travels.” Shoaling means sediment deposits, or sand banks. He later added: “They’re actually taking care of themselves actually pretty amazingly well.”
That means the city should be more inclined to do “spot dredging,” rather than wholesale dredging, Cake said–target areas where boats have issues, and avoid needless dredging where, say, deep-drafting sailboats cannot pass anyway, like areas constrained by a bridge.
“As soon as possible, we’re probably going to want the public to be able to weigh in to hear their comments,” Mayor David Alfin said, proposing that the discussion be made part of the city’s comprehensive plan review process. The comprehensive plan is a city’s blueprint for long-term planning and development. City Council member Theresa Pontieri would pair that with a presentation of the data to “consider the cost and the time and whether or not it’s even doable and legal.”
Councilman Nick Klufas would narrow down the discussion further: “If this is going to be such an expensive cost to us, why don’t we just try to identify who exactly is being impacted by this so that we can solve it for them,” Klufas said, “because it seems like if we were to go about a $10 to $20 million dredging process when we only have a handful of boats that are actually occupying our canals that put off enough water to be impacted by this, it just doesn’t seem very financially prudent. And I don’t think we currently have a list of all the individuals that say they’re being impacted by this.”
In other words, red-flag the affected properties and go from there, though Pontieri would prefer a more objective criteria than relying on homeowners to come forward, their hands raised. Still, she pressed for a survey of canal-fronting residents that would achieve Klufas’s goal.
So the council’s direction for now is to pursue Department of Environmental Permits for dredging the entire network, starting with an estimate of those permits’ cost–Cake would report back in about a month–and to solicit public input, along with a survey. The city has to figure out what depth it would dredge , and define what and where it wants to dredge–where people are having trouble with boat access.
The city retained Tyler Engineering to analyze the condition on the 26 miles of saltwater canals and study the history of permitting, whether for construction or for dredging, going back to the 1960s. Not a single permit was found: “They weren’t required when these canals were constructed,” Cake said. They were built at a substantial depth of 8.77 feet. Today’s canals are generally dredged at 5 or 6 feet.
Tyler surveyed all 26 miles to measure the current depth of canals. That’s the heart of the matter. the shallower the canals, the more need for dredging. But the survey found barely any spots that were shallower than three feet. The greater majority were deeper than 6 feet at their center, or 3 to 6 feet at the edges, making them easily navigable to most boats docked along those areas.
“Most of the main canals are actually in pretty good shape,” Cake said. For example the main canal along Club House Drive is deep, as is its perpendicular branch parallel to Florida Park Drive. The branchlets or fingers of those main canals, all along the small streets–Clarendon, Clearview, Clinton, Cloverdale, Cherry, Chesney, Chestnut, Floral, Fletcher, Flintstone, and so on–are shallower, in the 3 to 6 feet. Most of those dead-end canals show some shoaling.
There’s shoaling at the entrance of the canals that are parallel to the Intercoastal close to the entrance, and shoaling in the long Creek Nature Preserve, a kayaking favorite. Kayaks don’t need deep water.
The consultants also surveyed 52 miles of sea walls with a drone–recording eight hours of drone footage–which picked out some 200 “items of interest,” from erosion to seawall damage, with some sea walls caving into the canals, to segments that have no sea walls. Erosion does cause some shoaling, but it is immediately next to properties that are eroding. So the canals are not collecting silt from the properties. “There’s not a significant impact from seawall damage to the canals,” Cake said.
Sediment was collected from six locations. Unsurprisingly, it’s made up of a mixture of sand and organic silt. It can’t be spread on beaches, but it could potentially have uses as commercial industrial fill, Cake said. So the city isn’t going to make money from getting rid of the silt. It may be more challenged to find a place to dump the stuff. The consultants spotted two places where the fill could be used.
Should the canals be dredged to deepen them? Cake was equivocal on that score. Dredging even a square foot down means that that has to be done at every point in every canal. “That’s going to be a lot of volume, which translates to a lot of expense,” and it could cause damage to sea walls, all of which were built on different standards. “But to deepen the entire system would be a significant effort.”
Thirteen miles of canals are shallower than the optimal 6 feet at their center. That equates to between 250,000 to 500,000 cubic yards of silt to be dredged. It would cost $10 to $20 million, keeping in mind, Cake said, that “dredging costs are kind of veering all over the place with the cost of diesel and how many hurricanes have hit Florida and how busy the dredgers are.”
Another caveat: if a homeowner’s boat is silted in, it would not be the city’s responsibility to dredge. Dredging would be limited to the center of the canals–the highway portion, essentially, not the docking areas. To free those boats, “the most common way is to let the property owner have responsibility for that part of the dredging,” Cake said.
Sarasota County has an ordinance that makes it explicit: no dredging within so many feet of a private structures. That ordinance specifies: “Maintenance Dredging will be limited to the depth established by previous dredging, specific permit conditions, or a maximum depth of five feet, and shall be within a channel that is generally no greater than 30 feet in width and no closer than ten feet to any seawall, dock, structure, shoreline or embankment, unless otherwise approved by the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners.”
The 5-foot standard is notable, and could inform Palm Coast’s decision: its application in Palm Coast would further considerably narrow the areas needed for dredging, as would the 10-foot rule, and therefore costs. It would also make a maintenance program more feasible, and affordable.
The consultants are still analyzing funding sources for Palm Coast. Most of those are geared toward areas that have a lot of public access. These canals do not. They are geared specifically for private uses. Of course any boater can wander in unimpeded. But purpose would be limited. That narrows down the grant stream, since public agencies that provide the grants want to see the money benefiting primarily public uses, not subsidizing private luxuries.
Some grants may be available for the entrances of the canal network at the Intracoastal. Some grants may be available to improve water quality. A more targeted dredging plan would make determining whether grants are available easier, Cake said.
The consultants recommend another set of evaluations to determine which canals are most used and most need to be dredged, while also figuring out at what depth the dredging should take place. Comparing the canals’ 2005 survey with the new survey will help determine where “hot spot” areas are silting most quickly, and where the city could conduct spot-dredging, or maintenance dredging, to contain the problem. The city could also conduct regular surveys and use the results both to monitor the system and to tie some of the silting to major storms, with dredging that could be financed by the Federal Emergency Management Administration.
Michael says
It sounds good but I live in the w section I don’t want my taxes to go towards this I don’t live on a saltwater canal we shouldn’t have to share the expense to dredge the canals I feel like it should be at the expense of the homes that are on those lots. Separate tax for those lots. I am willing to bet people that don’t live on those lots would feel the same way
JD says
I don’t go to the W section, so I shouldn’t have my taxes taking care of your roads, parks and freshwater canals that exist there.
TR says
Your tax money isn’t going to pay for the roads in the W section, it’s going to pay for the roads in the section you live in. Not a good comparison imo.
I’m with Michael, I don’t have a canal in my backyard either, so why should I have my taxes pay for maintaining them. I don’t use the canals either because I’m not a boater.
Gus says
What a great idea let all the home owners who live on the canals pay for the dredging . While we’re at it let the people who have kids in the schools pay all the school taxes, why not. The more kids you have in the school the more you pay. I have no kids in the school so I will pay no school taxes. When you need the city to do work on your street send a bill to all the home owners on that street, no need for me to pay for work done on your street. When the grass gets cut behind your house you get a tax for that also. I don’t have a swale so you should pay for that also.
Jack says
You may not know but the homes on the saltwater canals already pay almost double in taxes. In addition- just wondering -Have you ever gone to the park in the F section- Holland Park? That is supported by everyone taxes not just the people in the F section.
Flatsflyer says
I lived on a canal in Sailboat Country for 18 years, now I live in a gated community with limited City and county services and my property taxes are twice as much, $3,700 verses $8,200. Did I mention that I also pay an HOA fee for services the city use to but nolonger pays.
Jack says
Well said Gus! – @Michael and TR – you seem to be out of touch as to how a community works.
ERIC says
I totally agree with you. If you want to purchase a home on the canals you should pay an additional subsidy for th use of the canals.
john stove says
In your analysis of the conditions of the canals, you make the comment….”shoaling in the long Creek Nature Preserve, a kayaking favorite. Kayaks don’t need deep water….” Agreed that kayaks dont need deep water but all the motorboats North of the preserve on that canal have to pass this shoal area and do need DEEPER WATER to make it thru.
Also the City used to have a “Caution Shallow Water” sign attached to the North end of the floating dock and it was just recently removed before the canal survey…..hmmmmm?
Interesting in that at the Long Creek Nature Preserve, there is a section of City owned and maintained natural bank/land (no seawall)….that is contributing to shoaling as well as the large fresh water weir on the west side which dumps organics laden fresh water in the same area.
At a minimum, this section of this particular canal needs to be dredged and paid for by the City of Palm Coast as they are the ones depositing the material in the canal.
Dennis C Rathsam says
For all you rich folks that live on the saltwater cannals….Get ready to pony up. Im not paying for your boat to get out to sea. The city has a lot of balls to put the whole city on hook for this. Pay to Play people…. your cannal U pay for the access. Or buy a smaller boat that fits. OH DEAR!!!! POOR POOR PITIFULL US!!!!
Ric Flair says
Actually you will be paying for part of it because we dont own the canals….they belong to the city. If we want to start subdividing who pays for what in this town then take off what we saltwater canal homes are paying for PEP tanks. We dont need them in this part of town. That wont happen either so like it or not thank you Dennis for your part in chipping in.
Celia M pugliese says
Rick you are so right yes lets canal front owners not to pay for the ZLBT sections Pep Tanks! We do not use them and further more we pay 3 times the taxes for a home in a water front than any other not in the water front, besides the much higher cost of a water front home to start with. So other than finger point at each other water front owners and none, we need to ask were the money goes! Also ask why city engineering department pays and outside area contractor 150,000 for the survey done and 10 to 20 million estimate to dredge the only 13 miles of side canals versus and offered local Bunnell contractor $20,000 survey and couple of million only to dredge all needed. These are the questions we need to ask other than arguing with each other about who pays what! Example: my friends and all the many no homesteaded owners of canal front small homes way less than 2,000 sq ft pay upwards of 10,000 a year fad valorem taxes or the water front pool home. So we all sure in the water pay well for our location, then my question is where all the money goes? In general our high water front yearly ad valorem goes this way 44% to county coffers, 24% only to the city and the rest to the schools, same with sales tax. Our canals were built to drain the whole city even the faraway sections of the saltwater canals have fresh water ones that drain in ours. ITT-Levitt used the back feel dug to built 26 miles of saltwater canals to raise all of the city lots were our houses are including all the additional miles of fresh water canals that run farther out drain in hours so Palm Coast is actually the seawall against floods that prevent what happened to Bunnell in 1941: https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/local/flagler/2019/09/11/flagler-county-history-bunnell-flooded-by-storm-in-1941/3201913007/ Just for this very reason is that then even our county that keeps the lions share of our 44% ad valorem and sales taxes should help fund a (not gouging) reasonable amount for a continue dredging done in house with our own equipment and labor all our fresh and saltwater canals, because they also prevent county flooding! We may need with city attorney advise take this to court if necessary. Inland navigation first, State and Fed grants for flood prevention should be available also to help the start up program…Then our storm water fee in our utilities should continue paying for the on going dredging besides paying for maintenance on land when our utilities fees paid will stop being used as cash cow for non related reserveuses.
Ed says
So if a giant sink hole makes your street unusable, my tax dollars should not have to pay for repairs because I never have or ever will use your street??? You should pony up the money and pay for it-correct?
And please note that not everyone living on a canal or in the Hammock is rich.
James says
What if a giant sinkhole opens up in the road in front of YOUR house? If you had to choose, would you choose to have the city repair the road first or dredge the canal in the back?
Ric Flair says
He doesnt have to choose. The city will handle both and Dennis above will be helping with the bill.
James says
No, we’ll ALL be paying the bill now.
But apparently you folks have been paying extra, just for this purpose. Where’s the money? Don’t fight with us, get to bottom of it.
John Stove says
The salt water canals are part of the Citys’ permitted stormwater system (call FDEP and ask for a copy of the City’s MS-4 Permit), the City via ordinance and codes controls all aspects of activities on the canal from dock permits, seawall permit fees, stormwater discharge, environmental control and even NO WAKE zones….
The stormwater engineering group has a line item in their budget “Salt Water Canal Maintenance” but doesn’t have much of any funds in it and yet the City has raised all of our stormwater fees over 76% in the last year.
Now, when its time to maintain the canals (as per the City’s consultant and not anecdotal evidence) suddenly the residents have to pay for it?
Not gonna happen…..being double taxed for stormwater fees and a local assessment?…..lawsuit time
Shark says
Whatever the initial cost is you might as well double it just like every other Palm Coast project !!!
-SG says
The City has previously made it clear it owns the saltwater canals and requires homeowners to sign license agreements to access City property. Through its proprietary powers of ownership, the City imposes conditions for use, including limits on how far docking structures can extend into the residential canals. In some instances, the City’s guidelines are stricter than state law, yet the City is able to enforce special requirements because it owns the submerged lands. It’s interesting that the City goes to great lengths to regulate usage of the saltwater canals, through the Land Development Code, yet is lukewarm on who is responsible for maintenance. FYI, the license agreement states in part that property owners will hold the City harmless for damage to docks arising from the City’s maintenance work or dredging on or about the property. So, at some point it seems the City contemplated performing dredging work.
On a related note, the City’s Engineering Technical Manual for Saltwater Canals, Section 1100, diagrams in great detail that the first 20-feet of canal bottoms are “property owner’s responsibility” yet there is no explanation. Yet the license agreement does not grant homeowners access to the waterway beyond the limits of their dock, either 12- or 16-feet depending on the width of the canal. There are inconsistencies that will need to be ironed out.
Shark says
I’ve seen the way property owners do their dredging under their docks. They either put their boat on their lifts and run the engines or hire the dock builders to come on weekends and blow it out with their pumps thus defeating the dredging
jeffery c. seib says
The conclusions reached by the Taylor Engineering firm are consistent, including the costs, with the research and study by the city of Palm Coast Beautification and Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) back in 2020, with the exception that the dredged silt is capable of being used as landfill. With the knowledge of the use of the saltwater canals primarily for boating by canal residents and that apparently only the largest of boats utilizing the canals are affected by ‘shoaling’ as Taylor Engineering calls it the canals have otherwise fared pretty well over the last 50 years or so. The wide range of the costs of dredging only the most filled in areas of the canals at 10 to 20 million is also consistent with the BEAC estimate of 15 million. But the very small and statistically invalid sample size of the dredged material chemical analysis should be a concern. The poisonous hydrocarbons for 50 years of boating and the nitrates from homes, no one should live in any dwelling where this material is spread underneath.
Celia M Pugliese says
These saltwater canals were built originally by ITT, along the fresh water canals that discharge on them to prevent floods ,by being drainage canals…Reason was that until Levitt -ITT bought the Palm Coast area land, this was a swamp. By designing and digging our 26 miles of salt water canals plus all the other miles of freshwater canals which sediments were used to backfill the lots our homes seat on was preventing the 100 years flood, that then county commission was concerned about with the building of Palm Coast. Then these canals serve the whole city of Palm Coast and as such dredging should be done on a continue basis by our city. The 10 to 20 million cost for 13 miles is right out gouging bid as small dredgers start a $10.500 and up to industrial ones : https://piranhapump.com
and the manufacturer as all do will train for free a group of city public works employees to do it in a daily basis…creating jobs at the same time. This cost should be funded by the storm water fee we pay in our utility bill and for the costly start up program city should apply for equipment buying grant and crew, grants from the Inland Navigation, State or Fed grants available given flood prevention. I agree that we saltwater canal front owner pay already 3 times in ad valorem taxes that the same home will pay not water front and also higher price of the home when we buy water front.
Also city should consider asking water front owners if they are willing to receive the sediment dough up from the center of the canal (as I will be one to accept some of it) that can be used to backfill our ever sinking sections of our lots. This will save the city disposal fees, labor hours and time to complete the task. City could also call volunteers to be trained within the crew of city workers to help maintain our canals as I bet many will do after signing a “Hold Harmless affidavit to the city” I would volunteer…The continue salt and fresh water canals dredging should be done mainly in spring and fall when whether is not as hot or cold. Hope our elected in the city read these suggestions!
Paul says
To ALL homeowners in Palm Coast
I have lived here in the F section for 31 years. I have NOT been able to get my swale cleaned out and leveled. Every house that was built on my street since mine was built is higher in leveled dirt some as much as 6 inches, This makes the rain water NOT flow after heavy rains. So Myself and 1 neighbor are stuck with 3 foot high water in our swales that never empty out. I ask a city engineer years ago if the city was ever going to fix the problem. He said they would have to remove ALL the driveways that where where built to high and he said the city would not approve that that. So the water has washed out the sand under my drive way and buckled the concrete slabs. Now I have a terrible cracked driveway, and continued 3ft water in my swale…….. I’m NOT going to fix this problem using my retirement money. So I refuse to cut the grass around the swale. It has snakes and frogs living in it,
Good luck getting the city to pay for canal dredging for that entire area. Thats NOT going to happen.
James says
I said it once before, I’ll say it again. You have canals, you should have had a plan in place to manage and maintain them… from the very beginning.
My advice folks, downsize. Get a dingy… or better yet, a kayak… and enjoy what you have. You have a lot already.
Don’t ask me to foot the bill with my tax dollars so someone can moor the Queen Mary out in back of their property.
Jack says
James- WHere do you think the water from the fresh water canal goes? Ok, the rain flows from your swale to the fresh water canal and then dumps into the salt water canal. Anti up Pal!
James says
I’m not your pal… and in all likelihood folks here will indeed be as you say “anting-up.”
I, on the other hand, am (finally) carefully looking at the hand I’m holding.
And as the song goes, “there’s a time to hold em, a time to fold em… a time to walk away, a time to run.”
I’ve been looking at my cards for too long here, I never really liked the hand, but perhaps you might understand my reluctance to “leave to game.” One knows the hand one holds, but seeing how well this one went, perhaps you can understand my hesitation in leaving the table. But then I really shouldn’t care if you do or not… and I don’t.
Just my assessment of the situation… and I’m not even poker player.
Mark says
The City really needs to look into how the Fox Waterway Agency in Northern Illinois works taking care of the Fox River and Chain of Lakes, I imagine there are other similar programs across the country. User stickers help pay for dredging and upkeep of the river, lakes and channels on a graduated fee structure from kayaks up to the largest boats.
oldtimer says
The saltwater canals may be ok but has anyone seen the freshwater ones? They were designed to help with flood control and run off but over the years they developed their own ecosystems. Alligators, fish , frogs, turtles, otters and other wildlife now call them home. For over a year the city has been replacing two weirs(damlike fixtures) as a result the water level has dropped over 5 ft. The result is weed choked stagnant water that has killed off most frogs and most of the snails the Limpkins eat. I haven’t seen a limpkin in a year .The canal is getting overgrown with grass and the banks are collapsing in some places. The city told me the work would be completed by the end of September but I doubt it, They’ve been working on the walkway by the schools on Belle Terre for almost 2 years! I hope the work is finished soon before we lose a real hidden gem and another piece of nature dies off in Palm Coast. I used to canoe for hours now I can almost walk the same route
noboatDad says
Absolutely everything we built or will build requires some maintenance, but that likely wasnt factored in ? Why dont they impose a tax on boats and/or boat licenses/registrations to help cover cost of waterway management. That way the people fortunate enough to own boats can help pay for the cost of the waterway maintenance. attempting to control nature is futile and costly; what kind of impact on marine ecosystems will this project cause? Sorry manatees we dredged up all the sea grass for our boats even though the hurricane pushed all the sand back into canals….
James says
When this canal issue “floated to the surface” about year ago a commenter on here noted that the owners of the canal home sites were always taxed at a higher rate. These extra tax dollars were to be used to create a special fund just for this purpose… the maintenance of the canal system.
Where’s the money?
This is the real issue here, and these canal homeowners (especially the long-time ones, not the developers looking for another freebie… yeah, there are still a lot of empty lots out there) are entitled to an answer… we’re ALL entitled to an answer now.
Where did the money go?
But that’s about it.
They didn’t notice over all these years that there wasn’t a department set up to look over the canals? Not even a skeleton crew of two, going out once a year in a row boat to check? They let it slide for too long.
Typical “left-over problem” from the resort community mindset that was Palm Coast.
In an interesting sidenote… there was once a town out west that was selling itself as a new Venice. They too had constructed an elaborate canal system. But after only a few decades it fell into disrepair and today there are only ghostly shadows of its existence.
That town is now the city of Los Angeles.
I was surprised to learn this many years ago from some TV show (I’m even more surprised I can remember it). I wonder if we’re at that point here… the canals are about fifty years on now, about the same age as the Los Angeles system was when it really went into decline. Perhaps we can learn something from that history.
Just my opinion.
James says
Btw, that’s “Venice Beach.” I just searched wikipedia for “Los Angeles canals.”
What a story that is… I was wrong about it becoming Los Angeles.
Los Angeles predates Venice Beach, and actually Venice Beach was incorporated into Los Angeles.
How relevant it’s history is to our situation I can’t say. But I did think of it, and reading about it, there are some eerie parallels in my opinion.
Denali says
Please provide the actual ordinance requiring “These extra tax dollars were to be used to create a special fund just for this purpose… the maintenance of the canal system.”. Such a reference would go a long way to proving mal- or misfeasance by the city. Hopefully your statement is not just another wishful pipe dream.
James says
I’m only “relaying” what was stated here the last time this issue arose. It was stated by two or three folks that were long-time residents on the canals.
Perhaps they’re dead now.
Why don’t you go out to the canals and knock on some doors and ask… that’s if you can find anyone living there this time of year.
James says
Hahaha… you know, you might be right!
You say “city ordinance.” I just realized, the most important word here is “CITY.”
The old canal residents might have had an agreement with ITT, and that might be what they spoke about.
But that might have ended when the resort town of Palm Coast converted over to “city.”
How very convenient, don’t you think. The process of becoming the “City” of Palm Coast rendered void any agreement that might have existed… yet some are still paying higher taxes under the impression they’re still doing so for canal maintenance.
Hahaha… now that’s a slick move! Wouldn’t you say?
Denali says
An awful lot of talk here about how the storm water drainage system eventually ends up in the salt water canals. While this may be true for the “B”, “C” AND “F” sections, The “L”, “W”, “R”, “E”, “P” sections and the areas south of 100 do not. So using this reasoning is not tenable to require all residents to pay for the canal dredging.
A question which needs to be asked is whether the City actually owes a duty to the canal residents to provide a navigable canal for their use? Yes, the city owns the canals but where does it contractually state what the city will provide in terms of canal depth or clearing?
SG says
I believe the City does have a responsibility to ensure the saltwater canals are navigable, if for no other reason to enable emergency access to City property. The City Attorney has previously stated the City owns the submerged lands under miles of “navigable” saltwater canals throughout the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. I believe the City Attorney is also on record as saying the City does not have an “obligation” to maintain the canals. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.